Abstract
Objectives Governments worldwide have recommended unprecedented measures to mitigate the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As pressure mounts to scale back these measures, understanding public compliance with and priorities for COVID-19 mitigation is critical. The main aim of this study was to assess public compliance with and support for government-imposed stay-at-home orders in nations and cities with different COVID-19 infection and death rates.
Design In this cross-sectional study, questionnaires were administered to nationally representative respondents from April 2-8, 2020.
Setting Regions with different disease prevalence included two nations [the United States (US—high) and Australia (AU—low)] and two cities [New York (NY—high) and Los Angeles (LA—low)].
Participants For adults 18 years or older residing in specified regions, eligible respondents were empaneled until representative quotas were reached for age, gender, and either race and ethnicity (US, NY, LA) or ancestry (AU), matching the 2010 US or 2016 AU census. Of 8718 eligible potential respondents, 5573 (response rate, 63.9%) completed surveys (US: 3010; NY: 507; LA: 525; AU: 1531). The median age was 47 years (range, 18-89); 3039 (54.5%) were female.
Exposure The prevalence of COVID-19 in each region (cumulative infections, deaths) as of April 8, 2020: US (458610, 15659), AU (5956, 45),1 NY (81803, 4571), LA (7530, 198).2
Main Outcomes Measures Public compliance with and attitudes regarding government-imposed stay-at-home orders were evaluated and compared between regions.
Results Of 5573 total respondents, 4560 (81.8%) reported compliance with recommended quarantine or stay-at-home policies (range of samples, 75.5%-88.2%). Despite significant disruptions of social and work life, health, and behavior, 5022 respondents (90.1%) supported government-imposed stay-at-home orders (range of samples, 88.9%-93.1%). Of these, 90.8% believe orders should last at least three more weeks or until public health or government officials recommend, with such support spanning the political spectrum.
Conclusions Public compliance with stringent quarantine and stay-at-home policies was very high, in both highly-affected (US, NY) and minimally-affected regions (AU, LA). Despite extensive disruption of respondents’ lives, the vast majority supported continuation of long-term government-imposed stay-at-home orders. These findings have important implications for policymakers grappling with the decision as to when to lift restrictions.
Competing Interest Statement
C.A.C. reports grants from Cephalon Inc., Jazz Pharmaceuticals Plc., Inc., Philips Respironics, Inc., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, ResMed Foundation, San Francisco Bar Pilots, Sanofi S.A., Sanofi-Aventis, Inc, Schneider Inc., Sepracor, Inc, Mary Ann & Stanley Snider via Combined Jewish Philanthropies, Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd.; and personal fees from Bose Corporation, Columbia River Bar Pilots, Ganésco Inc., Institute of Digital Media and Child Development, Klarman Family Foundation, Samsung Electronics, Quest Diagnostics, Inc., Teva Pharma Australia, Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Washington State Board of Pilotage Commissioners, Zurich Insurance Company, Ltd. In addition, C.A.C. holds a number of process patents in the field of sleep/circadian rhythms (e.g., photic resetting of the human circadian pacemaker) and holds an equity interest in Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Since 1985, C.A.C. has also served as an expert on various legal and technical cases related to sleep and/or circadian rhythms, including those involving the following commercial entities: Casper Sleep Inc., Comair/Delta Airlines, Complete General Construction Company, FedEx, Greyhound, HG Energy LLC, Purdue Pharma, LP, Steel Warehouse Inc., Stric-Lan Companies LLC, Texas Premier Resource LLC, and United Parcel Service (UPS). CAC receives royalties from Philips Respironics, Inc. for the Actiwatch-2 and Actiwatch- Spectrum devices. Interests for C.A.C. were reviewed and managed by Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Partners HealthCare in accordance with their conflict of interest policies.
Clinical Trial
Not applicable.
Funding Statement
This study was supported in part by the Institute for Breathing and Sleep, Austin Health; the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University; and by a gift to the Harvard Medical School from Philips Respironics. M.É.C. was supported by a 2020 Fulbright Future Scholarship funded by the Kinghorn Foundation through the Australian-American Fulbright Commission. L.K.B. and C.A.C. were supported in part by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health R01-OH-010300. C.A.C. serves as the incumbent of an endowed professorship provided to Harvard Medical School by Cephalon, Inc. The funders were not involved in the design and conduct of the study, the collection, preparation, or interpretation of the data, or the preparation or approval of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.
